Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Women's Issues
Friday, October 24, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Welcome Berkeley Rotary Club
We welcome you to our 2048 Project and thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation at your lunch meeting on October 8, 2008. We look forward to your thinking and comments.
All the best,
Kirk Boyd
Friday, September 26, 2008
Musings on a rainy day
Welcome, 2048 Bloggers. We’re kicking off this blog with a series of notes in response to the question: is it possible to effect change through law? We invite your comments on this topic, and any other that relates to 2048 and international human rights and the law.
-------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Fine, 2048 Project Manager, 9/22/08
Dear friends and colleagues:
I’ve been doing a lot of reading (historical, background of
There are the purists, who insist that what ever structure/law/policy is proposed must be the optimal, best solution. There should be no compromises, because this would equal failure, and would be an immoral cop-out. Even if the proposal has no chance of being accepted, it is better to be right than successful in this regard. Examples: Voting for Ralph Nader; almost anything the Berkeley City Council Proposes, usually the first draft of anything. Nothing ever happens, because there is no buy-in. The “beautiful losers” syndrome.
Then, there are the “realists”, the realpolitik folks who believe that a good bill, or candidate, while not perfect, is better than no bill/candidate/policy at all. Examples:
There's a middle path and it was taken by the inter crime court--you draft what is optimum then something less is approved. Don't be in a funk. We're the catalyst!
In my experience, meaningful change comes from within. I can't resolve your issues and you can't resolve mine. The
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve,
I wish you well and change inside is a good place to start -- it's worthwhile, but my answer is the same that I have been saying to the people I've been meeting at the (SNAP) conference here at
Don't be offended. A few people were tonight, but most, including the Leaders of this gathering, get the idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good thoughts. Steve's right and that's why I don't eat red meat and drive a Prius, and often ride a bike. Hopefully 2048 will build a bridge with these thoughts as you have in your comments.
From: Jessica Trupin, (community activist) 9/23
Haha! I eat meat almost every day and drive a 20 year old Volvo. But it’s local meat from the farmers’ market. Lord, the hairs we split!
From: Jessica Trupin, 9/23
I think you’re both buying into an old fallacy – that there’s one place where change has to happen. It has to happen on all levels and it must be constantly cared for and maintained. Steve, you’re absolutely right. If we as individuals don’t empower ourselves by constantly learning and living lives where we make our choices out of love instead of out of fear (which I see more often than I care to share) then we can only hope to make a faint, occasional impact on the world. But Kirk, you are totally right as well. By working at the macro level of laws, we both craft the framework and touchstone by which we all live and we send a message to others about what we value. Without the laws that we agree on (and the pathways to change those laws as our societies change) we can’t move our societies forward.
I love this conversation. I finally feel grounded. It’s the “middle path” plus Tikkun (healing, repairing, mending the world) that I love.
Hi Kirk, As someone with a lifelong interest in history who (sort of) sees law from the "inside", I'm not as enthralled as you are by the possibilities of meaningful change through law. Just one example (I could give lots more): Since the Nuremburg war crimes trials following WWII, it has been"international law" that starting wars and mass murder of civilians are illegal activities subject to punishment. Enforcement of that "law" has been hit or miss. The "little guys" (e.g.,
Nothing will change until people change. Changing ourselves is a lot harder than passing a law. Laws are to make other people do things "the right way"(as if some legislative body or dictator knows what is right for you). Most of us interpret at least some laws differently for other people than we do for ourselves. I do that sometimes. This is true of nations as well as individual people. (See the sporadic enforcement of the international "law" against genocide). We as Americans have way more laws on the books than we had 100 years ago (you'd be surprised how few laws there were in 1908). Has it made us better people? Has it reduced violence? Has it made us a less toxic society? No, no and no. The essence of law (local, national or international) is to make life more secure for the ruling classes, not the best interests of the local, national or international community. Waiting for leaders to solve problems by making new laws is an exercise in futility. We have lots of laws and none of them have improved us in meaningful ways. It's time to give up pretending that we can change other people through law. The place to start change is inside ourselves. The place to finish is not more laws, but helping other people change inside too. Law isn't the answer because it doesn't ask the right question. Law asks "how can we make other people do the right thing"? The question that leads to change is "how can we change ourselves and others so we can create a better world"?
I appreciate this conversation. I never quite understood the point of the law...ten commandments, Talmud, up to present time, until I started diving into this project. I agree, to some extent, with you, Steve. Especially when I'm in one of my cynical moods. But, as a pathologic optimist, I prefer to plunge ahead. The more I study the human rights literature and movements, the more I appreciate what a grand effort it is. As someone once said: It's a game worth playing.
I'm not going to address international law, because it's so varied. But think about it this way: women are now considered full citizens in the
Again, I push for the “one can't live without the other” school of thought.